Menu
Close
.svg)
These days, I find myself doing more interviews than ever. The pace may shift - more or fewer scheduled in a single day - the therapeutic areas may vary, but the fundamentals? They remain strikingly stable. And like any meaningful exchange, the first few minutes of a qualitative conversation—those seemingly routine background questions—are anything but superficial. They are our first lens into the psychology of the respondent sitting across the table (or, more likely, sitting at her desk logged in via Forsta or Civicom) and the broader behavioral context in which they operate.
Some who are listening in, understandably focused on the "meat" of the conversation - the concepts, messages, or product profiles - might see these warm-up questions as box-checking.
But these queries do much more than provide a professional snapshot. They establish the experiential frame through which all subsequent responses should be interpreted.
"So, tell me about your current role and medical specialty..."
This isn't just about credentials—it's about how the individual navigates clinical complexity. Every title, from doctor to NP, from pharmacist to social worker, from respiratory therapist to biologics coordinator, reflects a cognitive schema: a unique lens on what matters most in patient care, what "good outcomes" look like, and what constraints shape their decision-making.
In today's multidimensional world of healthcare, specialty dictates exposure: to types of patients, to categories of information, to degrees of treatment ambiguity. And job roles? They often mask rich, relevant interprofessional dynamics. A nurse coordinator may wield more day-to-day influence over adherence than a prescriber, and an office manager may be orchestrating formulary success or failure from behind the scenes. Ask what they do, not just what they are.
"How long have you been practicing?"
An elegant question with deep psychological undercurrents. Early-career professionals are often closer to the latest consensus guidelines and diagnostic technologies. But they may still be forming their internal algorithms—their sense of clinical "muscle memory."
On the other hand, experienced HCPs often carry a layered history of evolving paradigms. When someone says, "I remember when we used to treat this with...," it's not just nostalgia. It's an indication that they contextualize new information within a timeline of shifting norms and scientific advancements. Their decision style may be less about what the literature says today and more about what patterns have proven reliable across decades.
So, while tenure is often treated as a recruitment criterion, it's better seen as a proxy for cognitive anchoring and the durability of clinical beliefs.
A question about practice setting might sound operational, but it has profound psychological relevance. Are they operating independently? Within a group practice? In a hospital-owned system? Under the auspices of private equity?
These structures shape autonomy, risk tolerance, and perceived accountability. An HCP in a tightly controlled IDN may externalize decision-making (“That’s policy”), while someone in solo practice might feel more personally responsible for each choice. In group practices, the influence of colleagues can manifest overtly (shared protocols) or subtly (unspoken norms).
Understanding setting gives us permission to interpret ambiguity. A hesitancy to adopt a new treatment may be less about clinical doubt than systemic or social friction.
"Tell me a little about the rest of your team..."
This isn’t just about logistics. It’s about behavioral feasibility. Complex dosing regimens, frequent monitoring, or substantial patient education require operational support. A physician with a dedicated patient educator will view a new therapy through a very different lens than one who relies solely on hurried face-to-face consults.
We're not just exploring infrastructure here; we’re probing the behavioral constraints that influence choice architecture.
Perhaps the richest of the early-stage questions: "Where do you typically learn about new treatment options?"
This opens a window into both the content and the format of influence. Is the HCP data-driven? Relationship-driven? Community-oriented? Reactive or proactive?
We learn not just what they know, but how they know it. Academic journals suggest analytic rigor. Conversations with peers may reflect social proof or normative learning. If they rely heavily on reps, it may suggest receptivity to narrative persuasion and interpersonal framing; or, as we often say, they are "promotionally sensitive."
To paraphrase a recent interview with a dermatologist, "My hidradenitis suppurativa patients come in quoting influencers and Reddit threads. I usually say, 'Let’s take a look together,' and then I pull up UptoDate when they leave." That moment captured the layered reality of modern clinical information processing—a push-pull between social media narratives and evidence-based medicine, often navigated in real time."
That offhand comment reveals an intricate filtering process: an ongoing negotiation between layperson-driven information flow and clinical rigor.
These opening moments in a qualitative interview aren’t filler. They are calibration tools—contextual keys to decoding everything that follows. Each answer offers a cue about the respondent’s mental models, professional environment, and decision schema.
For brand teams and agency partners listening in: use these first few minutes as your primer. They provide more than just color; they illuminate the interpretive frame through which the rest of the conversation unfolds. Knowing who you're listening to, and how they are likely to think, should shape how you absorb every subsequent insight.
And for my fellow moderators and researchers: I’m always curious what techniques others are using in these early minutes of an interview. What have you found illuminates mindset most effectively? Any projective questions or creative techniques that help surface an HCP’s implicit reasoning or decision style? Let’s exchange notes.
Because sometimes, the richest insight is waiting for us right there at the beginning—in the space between "What do you do?" and "How do you think?"
